[lojban] Re: ralju bangu be le gligu'e

["Jorge Llambías" <lojban-out@lojban.org>]

On 5/4/06, John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Grammatically, however (in Lojban,
> that is -- in Logic the form matches the
> meaning), it asks for the principal one(s) among
> the languages of the  English land.

In Lojban the form matches the meaning, at least in this case. The relevant
part of the grammar is:

selbri <- tanru-unit+
tanru-unit <- tanru-unit-2 linkargs?
tanru-unit-2 <- BRIVLA  / KE selbri KEhE / ...
linkargs <- BE term (BEI term)* BEhO?

i.e. the linked arguments are absorbed by a tanru unit before it can
modify or be modified by another tanru unit. So I don't see any
mismatches between form and meaning here.

>  In this
> case, it is fair to assume that the referent is
> going to be the same, but obviously this will not
> always be the case.

Both orders are expressable in Lojban:

lo ralju (bangu be le gligu'e)
lo (ke ralju bangu ke'e) be le gligu'e

> And much of the discussion
> in CLL seems (it is often hard to be sure) to say
> that it is the logical meaning that is intended
> when there is doubt  -- to the dismay of anyone
> trying to write a semantics of the language.

There can be no doubt in this case though.

> (Note that the definition of {bridi} is already
> at variance with the grammar here.)

How so?

mu'o mi'e xorxes


To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.